There was one little nugget which could have ramifications on a number of sports:

Quote

The committee approved a one-year trial of a new Division III Women’s Volleyball Championship format. The final eight teams remaining after regional competition will be reseeded to better balance bracket play at the finals site. The discussion of the potential change in volleyball triggered a larger dialogue about the potential for the concept to be implemented in other sports. The committee will rely on feedback after the volleyball trial year to decide whether the change should be made on a permanent basis, and to inform any decisions regarding similar recommendations that may arise for other sports. Baseball implemented a similar change for the 2017 championship, although that action was taken to move away from determining first-round matchups based on an eight-year regional rotation.

“We approved the volleyball request on a one-year trial as it is our understanding that other sport committees are discussing this concept or may formally request to reseed the finals site for their championship,” Borchardt said. “Our committee wants to gather more feedback from all applicable sport committees and do an assessment of the volleyball trial year in 2017 before we take a formal position across all sports.”

I highly doubt that will affect a lot of other sports. Volleyball can do that because all eight head to the same site for the final weekend. Baseball is kind of doing that already for similar reasons. I just don't see that happening in other sports that don't have that option.

The more interesting nugget in there is looking into putting a day off between semifinals and championships. I doubt that happens as well (as it adds a lot of costs), but the fact it was mentioned shows in some sports it's being pushed. What's weird is most sports have back-to-backs throughout the tournament (and men's lacrosse needs to move to that format IMO).

I never really know what to make of these sorts of things. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval. But only 28% of the student body actually voted yes. I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.

This is an oversell. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval for the fee increase, but probably speaks to an indifferent at best stance on "keeping athletics part of their campus experience"—especially considering that not voting could defeat the measure.

Only 28% of the student body actually voted yes on this, and I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was even lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.

This is an oversell. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval for the fee increase, but probably speaks to an indifferent at best stance on "keeping athletics part of their campus experience"—especially considering that not voting could defeat the measure.

Only 28% of the student body actually voted yes on this, and I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was even lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.

Respectfully, the athletes, for whom D3 is an integral part of the college experience, mobilized.

I would give the same slack to the reporter who wrote that headline and feature story if a proposition for increased funding for the Fine Arts Dept passed in the same manner.

This is an oversell. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval for the fee increase, but probably speaks to an indifferent at best stance on "keeping athletics part of their campus experience"—especially considering that not voting could defeat the measure.

Only 28% of the student body actually voted yes on this, and I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was even lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.

I'm not sure how it is everywhere, but when I was in school a 10% turnout for any student vote was pretty darn impressive. Most college kids just don't care.

Respectfully, the athletes, for whom D3 is an integral part of the college experience, mobilized.

Great! I'm glad that Santa Cruz has athletics.

But the only people who chose to "keep athletics part of their campus experience" were the people who voted yes, and that was 28% of the students. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous, especially considering the measure required a minimum percentage of people voting to pass.

This is an oversell. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval for the fee increase, but probably speaks to an indifferent at best stance on "keeping athletics part of their campus experience"—especially considering that not voting could defeat the measure.

Only 28% of the student body actually voted yes on this, and I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was even lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.

I'm not sure how it is everywhere, but when I was in school a 10% turnout for any student vote was pretty darn impressive. Most college kids just don't care.

This is an oversell. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval for the fee increase, but probably speaks to an indifferent at best stance on "keeping athletics part of their campus experience"—especially considering that not voting could defeat the measure.

Only 28% of the student body actually voted yes on this, and I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was even lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.

I'm not sure how it is everywhere, but when I was in school a 10% turnout for any student vote was pretty darn impressive. Most college kids just don't care.

Respectfully, the athletes, for whom D3 is an integral part of the college experience, mobilized.

Great! I'm glad that Santa Cruz has athletics.

But the only people who chose to "keep athletics part of their campus experience" were the people who voted yes, and that was 28% of the students. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous, especially considering the measure required a minimum percentage of people voting to pass.

I think that you yourself pointed to the reason why there's more of an imprimatur attached to this vote in favor of UCSC athletics than you think. In fact, you pointed to it in italics. The majority of the student body didn't simply decline to vote on just any old thing, they declined to vote on a proposal to take more money out of their pockets. That speaks volumes about the depth of their indifference, because, as anybody who understands the American body politic knows, personal finances are a key -- perhaps even the key -- motivator for most people. That goes for college students as well as full-fledged adults, although the fact that some college students aren't financially self-supporting mitigates that somewhat.

Of the students who did care enough to vote on Measure 68, the tally was 4:1 in favor of the new fee to support UCSC athletics. That's pretty darned decisive in terms of the people who were motivated by the issue.

You think that the low turnout "could still present problems down the road in terms of support," but I see it as a ringing endorsement of UCSC sports. It may seem counterintuitive to speak of the power of apathy, but this was a pretty impressive demonstration of it. If UCSC students couldn't be bothered to resist a proposal to hoover more bucks out of their wallets, it seems like cut-and-dried proof that the Banana Slugs are going to be with us in the D3 ranks for the foreseeable future.

Logged

"Talent is God-given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful..” -- John Wooden

If UCSC students couldn't be bothered to resist a proposal to hoover more bucks out of their wallets, it seems like cut-and-dried proof that the Banana Slugs are going to be with us in the D3 ranks for the foreseeable future.

But that's what you keep misconstruing. They didn't have to vote no to resist the proposal. The proposal had two ways it could be defeated:

1. If 76% of the student body choose not to vote2. If the proposal got 25% of the vote, and more than 1/3 of the votes were no.

Because there were two completely different ways to defeat the measure, there were two ways, in the moment, students could decide to oppose it. They could not vote, or they could vote no. In that scenario, a non-vote cannot be considered a positive thing, no matter how much you want it to be, or how much you smite my karma. Yes, we know now that if a student chose to oppose it by staying home, they made the wrong choice, as it were. But if I were trying to get that measure passed, I would not look at the non-voters as people on my side.